mardi 21 mars 2017

Continuing the Debate with RT

Science refuted the erroneous beliefs the Church fathers held that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

The Church fathers fought back against science for exposing the errors of their beliefs.

Science today refuted the errors of the YEC; and the YEC equally fights back as more people realize the fallacies and conjectures of the YEC.

I appreciate your views as we are each obligated to defend them.

CT

Respectfully, "Call no man, ' father.'" There is no such thing as a church father, no such thing as ante-nicene fathers, etc.

What's more, we ignore these ancient authorities when it suits our own doctrines. Why, then, call upon them when they say something you agree with? Don't we regard them as mere men, as capable of error as the next guy?

DB

there is no gap indicated in the scriptures, only in the minds of those who have compromised their trust in God, having placed it in scientists.

RT

The early Church fathers apparently were unfamiliar with the KJ that refutes the YEC.

Scriptures in the KJ found in Gen 1:28 and 9:1 clearly support the Gap Theory of "replenishing the Earth."

Of course, many reject the KJ which is a rebuttal of the YEC traditions of men.

DB

Having a YEC theory should not be necessary because the theory that opposses of an old earth is not indicated in scripture, but rather in the science of man. That the earth is young is indicated both in scripture and in the earth itself.

RT

DB, you may have missed my comments above--so I'm posting them again:

"Science refuted the erroneous beliefs the Church fathers held that the Sun revolved around the Earth.

The Church fathers fought back against science for exposing the errors of their beliefs.

Science today refuted the errors of the YEC; and the YEC equally fights back as more people realize the fallacies and conjectures of the YEC.

I appreciate your views as we are each obligated to defend them."

DB

science does not prove the earth is old, it assumes the earth is old to fit their theories of uniformitarian processes.

that the earth is young is indicated in both the earth itself and in scripture.

catastrophism defeats the concept of uniformitarian processes.

nearly all of the geologic strata was laid down after the flood, caused by the flood.

all of the dating methods used by scientists are based on presupposed assumptions.

RT

And your view of the possible times Satan and the angels were created and the number of days afterwards that they quickly rebelled?

So you also don't believe the Universe is as vast as it is for the accuracy of the light years distance to the various stars and galaxies is accurate also?

CT

You're in denial, DB. It's not that you're denying "the truth," because I'm not claiming to know, absolutely, that what I believe regarding Genesis 1:2 is it. You're denying that somebody could believe in what you mistakenly refer to as the "gap theory" simply because the Bible says what it says. You keep demanding that I want some uniformitarian interpretation inserted into the Bible, despite my saying that uniformitarianism is bad science. You're denying that there is anything to discuss.

Given that, why not bow out of the discussion and let interested folks carry on? If, on the other hand, you're interested, then do more listening.

RT

Did you see my comments, CT?

"The early Church fathers apparently were unfamiliar with the KJ that refutes the YEC.

Scriptures in the KJ found in Gen 1:28 and 9:1 clearly support the Gap Theory of "replenishing the Earth."

Of course, many reject the KJ which is a rebuttal of the YEC traditions of men."

CT

I did see it, RT. I agree that the KJ translation allows for a "gap." Even better, though, is that the Hebrew makes a gap that much more likely.

DB

there is no gap and no need of a gap, isn't that obvious?

The supposed gap occured between Gen. 1:1 and 1:2. It's not indicated, but that's where it is placed by those who compromise their trust in God.

CT

Who needs a gap? I don't. Nonetheless, it says, "And the earth became a waste and a desolation."

Golly, that's interesting, to me.

End of story.

DB

that's not what it says.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void,

RT

"BECAME a waste and a desolation AFTER the first flood to destroy Satan's kingdom on Earth."

God doesn't initially create this way in such a manner to cover the entire land of Earth with water--as He normally creates in a manner that is good and perfect.

DB

no form because the land was below the sea, and void of any life at the time.

You're inventing your own theology.

RT

I'm also following the KJ with "REPLENISH" which was used twice as it should to reflect the Gap Theory.

DB

there was no need to replenish before the fall.

CT

You're not reading the Hebrew, Don.

DB

God's perfect creation was intended to last forever.

CT I'm reading the Hebrew translated by Hebrew scholars.

"formless and void"

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was formless and void,

The primordial earth was submerged below sea level.

Gen. 1:9 Then God said, “Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. 10God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.

you have your pet theology, I have the actual Bible verses.

RT

But you don't use the KJ verses as I did that promote the Gap Theory and then tell me that you have actual Bible verses.

CT

Intended to last forever?! DB, you're in disagreement with even "standard" doctrine, now.

DB

as long as I am in agreement with the Bible, it doesn't matter what men profess to beleve. You are defending a theology rather than the Bible.

RT The KJV is an archaic translation of the Bible. It's concise and poetic, but not accurate.

We have newer translations because we have better knowledge of the ancient languages and cultures.

RT

I understand your point, DB

At least you are not a YEC and also using the KJ.

What's your view re the ice age? Did that really happen or is it more false science?

I presume you and I agree that Adam and Eve were real people and not figurative?

Enjoy your weekend.

DB

Why am I not a YEC?

The question should be "why is anyone an OEC?"

The ice age resulted from the excessive moisture after the flood, condensating into snow and ice in the polar regions spreading southward as the years progressed.

RT

I meant a YEC and the KJ are an oxymoron.

CT

OK, DB, then I'll say you're in disagreement with the Bible, irrespective of any man's doctrine, by saying that the perfect creation was intended to last forever. This is easily proved.

If Adam had never disobeyed, we may conclude that he would still be alive, and everything would still be in perfect order.

Thus, there would NOT YET be a need for a Messiah, whose blood has a purpose, yet we also know that "all things were created through and FOR him." You would have the Messiah waiting around, looking for something to do because he couldn't redeem an unfallen world.

In conclusion, it is proved that a perfect creation that would endure in perpetuity was not the intention. The intention was to elevate God's son, and thus God. Adam's disobedience was not only part of the plan, it was even unavoidable.

RT

Good points, CT

DB

You are correct, but Adam did sin and we do need our Savior. God has two wills, HIs perfect will and His permissive will. God permitted man to choose to sin and God's perfect creation was ruined.

If Adam had not sinned, he would not have died. That is stated clearly in scripture.

How very evil it would be of God to cause Adam to sin and creation to be ruined. No, sin was not part of God's perfect plan. That is heresy.

Where do you get ideas like that? Certainly not from the Bible.

HGL

RT, "Science refuted the erroneous beliefs the Church fathers held that the Sun revolved around the Earth."

When? How?

"The Church fathers fought back against science for exposing the errors of their beliefs."

You are forgetting chronology totally.

The scientific debate in 17th C was scientific on BOTH sides, especially the Geocentric one, and looked back at Church Fathers who were a closed group of Catholic Saints and writers who had lived and been canonised saints previous to the schism between saint Leo IX and Michael Caerularius in 1054.
And in the Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages up to this schism, there was no science for them to "fight against", since science especially as scientific research and debate only originated twice over after 1054, with the scholastics, and with Francis Bacon of Verulam plagiarising some scholastic themes : in Italy the scientific debate between Galileo and Riccioli was however not indebted to Bacon of Verulam, but directly continued scholastics. These are ANOTHER group of Catholic writers.

So "Church Fathers fighting against science" is a time paradox.

"Science today refuted the errors of the YEC; and the YEC equally fights back as more people realize the fallacies and conjectures of the YEC."

Science may have refuted some conjectures of YEC, there are others to replace them, and I am contributing.

"I appreciate your views as we are each obligated to defend them."

Thank you!

"Respectfully, "Call no man, ' father.'" "

CT, Jesus didn't mean what you seem to think he meant.

"There is no such thing as a church father, no such thing as ante-nicene fathers, etc."

Yes, there are.

"What's more, we ignore these ancient authorities when it suits our own doctrines."

Catholic Church decided at Trent that we can't.

NOT when they agree with each other.

A Protestant who ignores Church Fathers when it suits his doctrines, he ignores them to his peril.

A Catholic who pretends to be a Catholic but ignores them so he can be Theistic Evolutionist or Old Earth Creationist as well as Heliocentric / Acentric is even an odious hypocrite.

"Why, then, call upon them when they say something you agree with?"

Because I volunteer to agree with them where they all agree, even if I didn't before.

Catholics at Trent and Orthodox at local but important councils of Jerusalem and Iasi condemned Protestantism over its rebellion against Church Fathers.

[As well as over a few other issues. Distinct from but involved in this rebellion.]

"Don't we regard them as mere men,"

No. Not I, I am a Catholic.

"as capable of error as the next guy?"

No. Not I, I am a Catholic.

CT, again:

"If Adam had never disobeyed, we may conclude that he would still be alive, and everything would still be in perfect order."

Yes.

"Thus, there would NOT YET be a need for a Messiah, whose blood has a purpose, yet we also know that "all things were created through and FOR him." You would have the Messiah waiting around, looking for something to do because he couldn't redeem an unfallen world."

God the Son would not have needed to come as Messiah.

"In conclusion, it is proved that a perfect creation that would endure in perpetuity was not the intention."

It was God's intention that this should be possible, except that Adam's free decision ruined that part.

"The intention was to elevate God's son, and thus God."

He was, since Adam was walking with Him in Eden.

"Adam's disobedience was not only part of the plan, it was even unavoidable."

It was avoidable to Adam.

Genesis 2:17 the same day (read thousand years) that you eat of the fruit, you shall die.

Mark 2:17 not the well, but the sick, need a physician.

DB As to "The ice age resulted from the excessive moisture after the flood, condensating into snow and ice in the polar regions spreading southward as the years progressed."

I don't think this was the whole story.

You see, higher levels of cosmic radiation seem to cause colder weather. The "little ice age" a few centuries ago (1300 to 1600 or to 1700?) is coinciding arguably with a higher level of cosmic radiation causing organic objects from those times to be dated too young except after calibration.

However, a high level of cosmic radiation just after Flood is required to cause an about 20 times higher production of carbon 14 than we have now, because without a faster production of carbon 14 for some centuries, we would after these millennia still have only about 45 % of the carbon 14 level we have today AND have had since about 500 BC, since carbon dates match well dated historical objects.

This means that the higher level of cosmic radiation could well have contributed to the ice age happening faster than Michael Oard thinks.

I think it started after Flood and ENDED around Tower of Babel, with the Younger Dryas carbon dating roughly to that time (I identifiy Tower of Babel with Göbekli Tepe).

CT

Not even Catholics agree with everything the ancient Christians believed.

You ignored the key point regarding the alleged intent on Yahweh's part to have His creation continue forever, perfectly. Since the universe was created for Yehoshua, whose purpose it is to redeem the creation from death, then the universe was created with the intent that it would need redemption from death.

If it were not so, then perhaps the only alternative is to say that Yehoshua didn't originally have the purpose of redeeming anything. All things were created through him and for him just because the Father wanted to do something nice for His son. I would say this is a tenuous doctrine. Or is there an alternative to it?

DB

the universe was not created for sin. Jesus was the Creator and necessity made Him our Savior.

HGL

CT, the main argument has been answered by DB, only:

"Not even Catholics agree with everything the ancient Christians believed."

Supposing your mean Catholics what we universally believe and ancient Christians what they universally believed, so it is not just a matter of diverse opinions now and then, or of picking one Catholic from then and one from now and see where they disagree in free matters and say Catholics have contradicted each other, would you mind giving an example?

DB

Doctrines should be founded in scripture, not the opinions of men, even if the are priests.

The Catholics wanted the Bible printed only in Latin, so that the common people could not decide for themselves, what the Bible teaches us.

When the Bible was translated into English and the other modern languages, the authority left the church and returned to it's rightfull place, the Bible.

HGL

"Doctrines should be founded in scripture, not the opinions of men, even if the are priests."

Scripture or apostolic tradition.

When priests differ, they may singly be wrong, but not all of them. When the Church Fathers all agree, they must be right, since that is involved in God's promise to His Church.

"The Catholics wanted the Bible printed only in Latin, so that the common people could not decide for themselves, what the Bible teaches us."

Historic factoid and has very little to do with the facts on periods when it can even be debated whether the Church was Catholic or pre-Protestant.

"When the Bible was translated into English and the other modern languages, the authority left the church and returned to it's rightfull place, the Bible."

Totally unbiblical, since the Bible doesn't call the Bible, but the Church Pillar and Ground of Truth. 2 Tim 3:15, sorry, meant 1 Tim 3:15.

As for 2 Tim, St Paul is speaking to a man whom he has chosen to be a bishop, a very early Church Father. He is not adressing these same words to each and every layman. And he is talking to one who had been not just reading the Actual Text of Moses and the Prophets but who had had Rabbinic instruction as to their meaning.

Under the Old Testament, it was obviously true that where Hillel and Shammai differed, they might each be wrong, but when all agreed, they had to be right.